The Charlie Kirk Show - Charlie Kirk vs. The University of Oxford

Episode Date: June 15, 2025

Oxford is the oldest university in the English-speaking world, and one of the most elite. But can its students measure up to Charlie Kirk? Charlie takes questions from the head of the Oxford Union on abortion after rape, birthright citizenship, and Joe Rogan, then faces off with the crowd on South Africa and far more in one of his most magnificent debates ever. Watch every episode ad-free on members.charliekirk.com!  Get new merch at charliekirkstore.com!Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Hey everybody, Tim, the Charlie Kirk Show. My debate at Oxford. That's right, I think you'll really enjoy it. It's my back and forth with the students at Oxford. And boy, this has gone very viral, so make sure you listen to it and enjoy. Email us as always, freedom at charliekirk.com. Become a member today, members.charliekirk.com. That is members.charliekirk.com. Thanks to Allen Jackson Ministries for your continued support. Buckle up everybody. Here we go. He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point USA.

We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country. That's why we are here. Noble Gold Investments is the official gold sponsor of The Charlie Kirk Show, a company that specializes in gold IRAs and physical delivery of precious metals. Learn how you could protect your wealth with Noble Gold Investments at noblegoldinvestments.com. That is noblegoldinvestments.com. It's where I buy all of my gold.

Go to noblegoldinvestments.com. Charlie Kirk is the founder and president of Turning Point USA, a prominent conservative youth organization with a presence of over 2,000 high school and college campuses across the United States. He served as the chairman of Students for Trump, which focused on mobilizing young voters during the 2020 presidential election. Kirk is the host of the podcast, The Charlie Kirk Show, and maintains a social media presence following with high levels of engagement across all platforms. So please welcome me with introducing Charlie Kirk. Welcome. Thank you. Honored to be here.

Thank you so much. So I'm going to go straight into it. So some of my first questions are regarding immigration. So you've argued the 14th Amendment has been misapplied to undocumented immigrants. And if so, you oppose birthright citizenship? And if you do oppose birthright citizenship, what alternative system would you propose for determining who is automatically a citizen? And how would you address the risk of creating a legally precarious or stateless class of US-born children? It's a good question. And first of all, thank you for having me and great to be here, everybody. So if you don't, what I was amazed, I was at the other place yesterday. So we hope that you guys are going to be even better, right? We'll see what happens.

I was amazed by how much you guys care about American politics and you know about our system of government. So if you don't know, I'm just going to kind of just give you a quick overview. So we have the 14th Amendment. It was one of the post-Civil War amendments. It's been used to apply for a lot of different things. One of the ways that it's been debated is this idea of birthright citizenship. So birthright citizenship is that currently in America, you could fly from Beijing, China, nine months pregnant, land in San Francisco, go to the hospital, and your baby is a full U.S. passport holder, full U.S. citizen. No reservations, no, you know, asterisk, nothing at all whatsoever. So that is what's called birthright citizenship. Most of the rest of the world doesn't have it. I don't think you guys

have it here in Britain, where you could just come into the country and have a baby, and you get a passport, and you become a full citizen. So the question is, does the 14th Amendment apply to the children of non-citizens? Well, the Supreme Court ruled in the late 1890s in what's called the Wong case that it does apply to the children of permanent residents. And well, since 1890, I think it was 1898 or something similar to that, it has not yet been decided or adjudicated whether or not illegal immigrants or non-American, non-permanent resident, non-US passport, non-green card holders and their children can get birthright citizenship. I think that we should

join the rest of the world, including your country, and not give just full US citizenship for people that come on birth tourism to the United States. Thank you. So then what is the alternative system you propose? Because I know the UK has a similar system, but I think Ireland still has kind of like the birthrights and stuff like that. So what would be your alternative? Well, to the birthright citizenship question, just get rid of it. And replace. Replace? Well, there should be no replacement, meaning that if you want to come to the United States of America,

apply like everybody else and get in line, and you don't get to show up pregnant and have a child and that child becomes a full U.S. citizen. So in terms of situations where like the parent has been an undocumented immigrant for a couple of years or decades at this point and they're having children, where does that leave the children? Do we then create like a state of like basically people who don't have kind of like documentation. Yeah, that's correct. They do not become U.S. citizens. So our belief is that we should deport everyone who is in our country illegally back to their country of origin,

something that finally your labor prime minister is waking up and saying he wants to do. I hope he actually does it, but it's quite a concept that you're not allowed to come into a country unless you're invited. And so we in the United States just won a popular vote election, a popular vote majority and electoral vote majority under the idea that we want mass deportations. So if you are in our country illegally, the United States, it is our plan

to return you back to your country of origin as a full family unit. Thank you. And then talking about kind of the idea of mass deportation and basically Trump winning an election and that, we've seen recently that he's been expediting the refugee applications of white South Africans, claiming they are victims of racial discrimination. Considering what you've just said about kind of mass deportation being the few, what do you think justifies the embrace of white South African immigrants and their temporary legal protections that Trump is granting them? Well, for one, one of the leading political parties in South Africa is saying that we should kill the boar over and over again in an endorsed chant from the top leaders in a political rally saying that we should go kill the white South African farmer.

You can look at videos of crosses that will fill roads for miles of white South African farmers that have been brutally murdered in their home, basically because of what is called land reparations at worst. So this is a at best, and then there's another word that we could use for it, which we'll see if it actually qualifies for that as time goes on. But yes, I mean, this is a group where a government has decided that we want, we are endorsing the worst and most venomous form of racial hatred against white South African landowners, and they're fleeing appropriate asylum with the United States. Hilariously, it's only been like 25 people that have received this

asylum, and the American leaders have been completely okay with every other type of person on the planet to be granted asylum. Like 15 million people, they want to grant asylum. But when 15 white South Africans want to show up to the United States and have asylum because there's actually an endorsed mantra and chant to kill them, all of a sudden there's a major issue. I wonder why. Thank you. So then considering that, so if it applies to, for example, Nigerian Christians being killed in Nigeria and other kind of like world atrocities we're seeing across the world where people are in a vulnerable position, you would agree then that they also should have their

application? It can. Again, it's a case by case basis. And if one of the leading political parties in Nigeria, whether it be the Muslim or the Christian faction, was outwardly saying we must kill the Muslims or we must kill the Christians, we're a very generous country. We're willing to look at all the cases associated. I happen to know the South African one better than the Nigerian one. I mean, Nigeria is the most populated country in Africa, so it's not unreasonable that something like this could happen. But the United States of

America is a generous country. We've been known when it meets the criteria that we are a place that you can find safe refuge. The problem is our asylum process has become a scam the last 15 years, where people from countries just that have high crime rates are able to say that I am fleeing violence to come to the United States of America. Well, guess what? The United States is also very, very violent. You go to Chicago, go to Philadelphia, it's not exactly a good cause or good claim. And that is in a bad way. That is a way where our compassion as Americans is being taken advantage of for an ulterior political motive. Thank you so much. Moving on slightly to a different topic,

which is abortion. Currently, there is a woman who's been declared brain dead in Georgia and is being kept on life support because the state's restrictive abortion laws that ban abortion after cardiac activity is detected, generally at six weeks. So I want to basically ask you, A, your thoughts on that and how you think kind of like the pro-life arguments apply. I'm having a hard time hearing. So you said there's a woman in Georgia that's on life support because she was not able to get an abortion. So she's being kept on life support because she still has this baby in her womb. She has a what? I'm sorry. She still has this baby, but she's like brain dead, completely brain dead. She still has a baby? Yes, but she's being kept on life support just because of this baby. And this is just due to the state's restrictive abortion laws that ban abortion

after cardiac activity is detected. So I don't know enough about the case. Why is she on life support? Is it a pregnancy-induced ailment, or is it unrelated? Separately ill, but the idea is she's completely brain dead. So basically the only thing that's keeping her alive is this machine because of the baby, due to the restrictive abortion laws. Yes, I mean, that baby is going to be able to live, praise God. And that mom will now, her parting gift to the world will

be another life i think that's beautiful unless there's an element of the case i'm missing like she has pregnancy induced sepsis or there's something related to the case that i'm not aware because i do believe in the exception for the life of the mother but i don't that doesn't sound like that's what this case is so to be clear like the mother is dead and like she's being kept alive how is she dead if you congestate a baby she's she's brain dead but she's not dead hold on a second she's brain dead but let's let's let's re-examine what being dead means how can you actually have a baby fully develop within you if you're dead and that's what's always so interesting people that are called dead they could still get pregnant women who are dead still menstruate. They still, when

they are stabbed, their adrenaline levels go up. And again, this goes back to the fundamental question of what is a human being and when does life begin? And it'd be very interesting. Shouldn't the question also be, I don't know what her wishes are. Do we know her wishes or not? Well, the thing is, again, she's brain dead. She can't give what her wishes are we do we know her wishes or not or well the thing is again she's brain dead she can't give us her wishes but hold on a second again she put up prior to this of the pregnancy said i want to do whatever is possible to save my baby so it's not a dumb question yes but i'm not saying it's a dumb okay so we don't know so therefore since we don't know her wishes we should yield on the side of life and if that baby is able to survive and the mom dies i mean that's the that is of course the

moral thing to do surely considering her family is kind of like please have been to basically save her first which is obviously not possible anymore but i'm sorry so the family wants to save the mom and but you said she's brain dead so there's no way to save her so my point so she's simply just a vessel for a life well do you think that's okay for a woman to just be vessels for life? No, of course not. In this extreme case, though, which is a moral question of if you terminate the mom, the baby dies. If you can keep the mom, quote unquote, alive long enough, another life enters the world. That is a morally great thing for humanity to be able to say another life comes into the world

when someone who is brain dead would otherwise have no contribution to the species. But what if this continues when we see more restrictive abortion laws in different states? Well, we're not. This case that you're saying actually proves my point that she doesn't have agency. She doesn't have consciousness. So we should yield on the side of the protection of the human being in utero. So here's my point. The reason why we have this case happening in the first place is because of how restrictive the abortion rules. So here's my point.

Abortion should be banned in the United States of America, and we're well on our way to do that. Yes, correct, completely, except for the life of the mother. Okay, so in the exception of the life of the mother, you agree that that should be used. But in this case where we basically have these women being vessels as brain-dead individuals, and we're continuing to carry these pregnancies to full term. Do you think this is like morally OK in terms of what if the woman says no beforehand?

She doesn't want to be carried as a vessel. I guess the question I would pose to you or anybody else, what is the moral difference between the baby and the woman? One is older. Are they not both human beings? I mean, why all of a sudden that we're able to say that she's older and more developed that you can eliminate the smaller being? Why is that okay? Under what moral standard is okay to eliminate being smaller than you or because that you've been developed more? In fact, we should, as humanity say, under this very extreme case, and thank you for bringing it to my attention. I'm actually going to talk about it because it might be used as like a way to like put us on defense, but in some ways it shows that we value both human beings.

That that mom who might not have nothing else to give, again, the last thing that her body can actually do is to have another life, her offspring, enter into the world. And of course I would defend that because every human life is exceptionally and uniquely made and we believe in universal human equality the first of which is life okay thank you um so some other abortion related questions kind of like touching on what you said um you've kind of talked about obviously the safety of the mother being like the only kind of like bar in which you think abortion correct yeah um so what about abortions in cases of sexual assault or rape? Yeah. So again, let's just say I have two ultrasounds here. One of the ultrasound is a baby that is conceived in rape. The other one is from a loving marriage. Do we know which one is which? So they're both human beings and they both deserve human rights. Someone in this audience was

conceived in rape. Do you know who? Tell me. Do they look different? Do they get less rights? Are you not able to have free speech rights because you're a rape baby? No, we believe in universal human equality regardless of how horrific or evil the method of conception is. That is what built the West and I will continue to defend that. So then what happens in cases when the baby that is a product of rape or sexual assault is mistreated, is abused? That's a separate issue. There's plenty of babies that are in loving mon rape or sexual assault is mistreated, is abused. That's a separate issue. There's plenty of babies that are in loving monogamous marriages that are mistreated and abused.

Separate. There is no correlation. There's no moral justification to say that I think, or I even have data that that baby will be abused or mistreated. Therefore, murder is okay. I mean, there is correlation. I think it's very clear when they've been perceived in very, very horrific situations, the mother specifically as well,

is obviously in terms of mentally the impact they haven't had, that still the mother has to raise that baby all the way until 18 years old. Still not a justification for murder. And if you think that abortion is just a medical procedure or cosmetic type intervention, no different than getting plastic surgery, women have regrets after abortion. They have psychological trauma. Again, the question is, do we defend human life universally as a statement? And if the question is, I'm going to just kind of, well, I can eliminate the smaller life because I have regret of a sexual encounter I had, then I find great question with that. On the rape thing, though, to your point, it is the hardest thing that we have to defend

on its surface. Rape is awful and terrible. Rapists should be castrated and put in life for jail the rest of their life. The more important fundamental question is under what moral standard it is okay to do something evil after an evil act when a life is eliminated. One of the most powerful things I get to do is go down college campuses and all the time I meet young kids that were babies, that were scheduled for abortions, that were conceived in rape, and they are full citizens of America that are flourishing and doing amazing things. And I believe that we should get back to this idea that all human beings are equal regardless of how you enter the world. Thank you. Then considering, obviously, you've talked about how we need more abortion restrictions, but we're also seeing low birth rates in America and also in the West as a whole.

How do you think they interact with each other? And do you think they're related? I'm sorry, just to make sure I'm hearing the question. And it's not your fault. It's the acoustics. You said falling fertility rates and abortion rates? Yeah, basically. So we actually already have a window into this.

In Texas, we have completely abolished surgical abortion. You could still do an at-home abortion, which is mithopressinone, I think is what it's called. And birth rates are up. About 200,000 new babies net over the last 18 months in Texas versus the years prior. And so, yeah, I mean, in the UK and America, we wouldn't need as many third world immigrants if we didn't kill our babies all the time in the womb. Thank you very much. My next question is slightly a larger picture, considering not abortion, but just the treatment of men and women. So what do you think the role of red pill media is in the men's rights movement? And what are the implications you think it has for women? Okay, so you're, I'm sorry, you said that what is the role of right wing media in the red pill media? Yes, red pill. I'm not I'm not trying to be no don't worry i want to make sure i answer the question so what is the role of right-wing media in the red pill media i'm sorry okay red pill media what in the men's rights movement what what is red pill media so um trying to think of a

more broad definition can you give me a name i think like joe rogan you're name like joe rogan your andrew rogan's awesome great what's wrong with joe rogan i didn't say there's anything what's joe rogan's role he helps save civilization he's a bow hunter he's fun my more general point is very much um content that's being produced right now regarding men, how they act in terms of very toxic masculinity, how they treat women. Something we've seen, at least in the UK, was the show Adolescence came out recently. Yeah, which was a complete fiction, by the way. Talking about... What was it based on?

Talking about the kind of the way media interacts. It's a on talking about the kind of the way media it's a mythology no different than lord of the rings like there's no there's no basis for this and there's a slight difference well you're right the difference was that the main character was actually an immigrant not a white person that's right that's the one thing they got wrong so is it a complete fiction or is it yeah it's a mythology i mean if they would have talked about how it was like a third world arab young kid radicalized by Islam and then started decide to go stab somebody, then they would have gotten more correct in that Netflix special. But yes, the point that I think and by the way, this kind of scold not you, you've been great, but like that ridiculous, the head of the conservative party being scolded. Have you not watched adolescence? What are you talking about? As if it's like some sort of like,

like you have not read the catechism of, like the core faith. Have you not experienced the full Eucharist? It's just like preposterous. And so, I mean, sorry, you're asking a good faith question. Like what is the role of right-wing media? Of course, there talks masculinity.

There's a war on men in the West. We as men are here to be protectors and defenders and providers. We should treat women with total dignity and respect of which I'm a proponent of men. I know this crazy Christian idea of saving yourself until marriage and not having sex until marriage. I believe abstinence is not talked about enough. In fact, you want to dignify women all of a sudden don't have a bunch of hookup sex on Tinder and every app that you can get your hands on and start acting like men. And so insofar that any media is talking about using women as objects or as ways to try and sleep around a lot, I reject that. At the same time, I am a traditionalist, where I believe most, not all, but most women of the West,

deep down, desire getting married and having children, and they have a husband who loves them. We have a lot of sex in this society, and we don't have enough love in this society. Because love comes from connection, it comes from the soul, it comes from something deeper, not just an orgasm. Thank you. Thank you so much for your answer.

Just another follow-up question on that in terms of Red Pill Media, specifically stuff like Andrew Tate's content, which I think is probably on the edge and kind of the fringe of it. What are your thoughts then in terms of when it kind of pushes the limits? Yeah, I don't know. Andrew, I've never met him. I mean, he has a certain following

and he has a certain approach. I've seen some of his content, some of it I like, some of it I disagree with. I can only speak for what I believe and I think that's fine. I mean, if there's a video or a statement you want me to respond to, I can do that.

But more broadly, I think that the men of the West have been infantilized for too long. We have the lost boys of Peter Pan that are basically watching porn all day long and doing drugs, and they don't have to go on an adventure to mature themselves. They have nothing significant to aim for. And part of that needs to be challenge. Young men need challenge. They need something that elevates them above their primitive state of just indulging the flesh.

And that means an entire society that knows that young men need other men to communicate to them in a way that is not that you're the worst, most awful thing ever because we see the men of the West checking out. And I would love during our Q&A portion if somebody thinks that's a good thing or a bad thing. And if you think it's a good thing, at least you are morally consistent. If you think that the men of a society checking out is a good thing, well, you are getting your goal, because that is what is happening. We have like this generation that has completely disappeared of young men, particularly in my country, in the middle parts of America. I don't know if the same trends are here in the UK, but I do know that it is intercontinental, this trend. We see it across Europe and across the UK of this hyper fixation on feminism and female empowerment, while also not acknowledging that strong men built the West and won the wars and built the building that we're

in right now. And without strong men, then you all of a sudden see civilization unfold upon itself. And we're seeing that happen in real time. Thank you so much. I'm going to move on slightly in terms of topic area. What is your stance on Project 2025? It's going great. To what extent do you think it's feasible in terms of all the actual clauses within it? In all fairness, it's a 1,200-page document. I haven't even read it all. But the parts about deconstructing the administrative state, there's an entire chapter of Project 2025 that our former president, who wasn't even president, he was brain dead, and you all know it's true, and the media covered up for it, and they lied about it, and they smeared all of us that acknowledged it and knew it. He did not even know the year he got elected. That is a fact.

You can go listen to the Robert Hur tapes and the leader of the United States of America did not know the year that he got elected. And an aide had to insert be like, no, sir, you were actually elected in this year, not that year. He didn't know the year that he left office as vice president. He thought that his son died in combat, not of cancer, in an official testimony to the United States government about a criminal investigation. So we had an administrative state running our government. So about Project 2025, Joe Biden and the Democrats and some very weak Republicans told us the border is a problem that cannot be solved. You just have to get used to the fact that two and a half million people come into your country every single year. There's nothing you can do. In Project 2025 and other documents, there's like, no, we can operationalize the border. We're going to

remain in Mexico, all these other details. So in April, 60,000 people last year came across the southern border illegally. 60,000. Last April, this one, six. President Donald Trump did not need Congress. He didn't need a new act of legislation. Turns out we just needed a new president who knew what to do and actually cared about sovereignty. So I think the project's going great. I don't know all the details, but I'm thrilled that America has its mojo back. Thank you very much. My next question is something you said regarding Obama. You described him as a failed cultural revolution agent.

What did I say? A failed what? Failed cultural revolution agent. Oh, that's right. That's correct. Yeah. Can you please clarify what you mean by the statement and your position on basically DEI more broadly? What was the DEI part? So can you clarify, A, what you meant by that statement about Obama, and then your position on DEI more broadly?

Oh, okay. Got it. So I'll do the second one second. Okay. So yeah, Obama's revolution, partly in his book dreams from my father, which I encourage you to read, was that he thought that he would bring forth a great awokening and a reconfiguration of America. And he thought that Hillary Clinton was like an automatic to become president, they thought they were going to stack the Supreme Court with three new Supreme Court justices. And his revolution never actually hit its final mark. Instead, President Donald Trump won in 2016. We got three Supreme Court justices.

We were displaced from power from four years. And now President Trump is back on top. And almost every one of the core things that Obama ran on or defended have fallen out of popularity with the American people. And so you can like Obama. I actually think there's plenty of things you can like about him. He's very talented. He's very charismatic. He's very good in his feet. He respected the White House. He respected the Oval Office. There's plenty of stuff. I'm not like an automatic hate Obama guy, but you must just be factual. Like his vision, what he wanted to do for America has failed. It's failed in the popular vote majority. It's failed in our public

opinion polls. Young people, which used to be Obama's greatest constituency, college campuses were all on fire for Obama. Well, young people actually moved the most towards Donald Trump this last election. And President Donald Trump won the youth vote in Michigan and several other battleground states. As far as DEI, my stance on it, I'm very much against it. And they say it stands for diversity, equity, inclusion, but it really stands for didn't earn it. Can you elaborate more why you think it didn't earn it? Yeah, I mean, so again, so DEI is a very innocuous term that can be applied in many ways. So affirmative action is an extension of DEI, and they're kind of like cousins to each other.

So there's four elements to this. There's critical race theory, which is the legal, it's kind of like the philosophical theory. We could talk about it if you like. There's affirmative action, which is most definitely in practice, if you will. And then there's disparate impact theory, which has been the predominant legal theory in the United States to justify the U.S. Civil Rights Act. And it's downstream tributary effects. And then there is diversity, equity, inclusion, which I think the best example of DEI can be how it's kind of taken over the corporate workforce. There's two ways I could look into it. Number one, DEI demands that you must hire these new ridiculous diversity

departments for no reason whatsoever that weigh down costs that are basically speech police internally of our major companies that make it a less desirable place to work and honestly less productive and less likely for us to be able to compete against the Chinese communists. So I could talk and I can give you examples on that if you'd like. The other part of this though is that you could insert, I don't know how much deep you want me to go into this, but fundamentally DEI is about race quotas in America. I don't know if it adheres in the UK. And so when you have a quota and you want to reach that quota, you will then have to relax the standards of excellence. When you build a big organization, you say, this is what we stand for. Harvard, for example, used to stand for truth, veritas. Every organization must have a telos. It must have something you aim at. And if you aim at anything other than excellence or meritocracy as a company, then you will compromise those things. If all of a sudden you want to be equitable, well, maybe that company will not be that good anymore.

And we see the slippage of our excellence here in the West, where if we get away from excellence and meritocratic type undergirding philosophy and towards other type substructures, I think it's a remarkably dangerous proposition. Thank you very much. We're honored to be partnering with the Alan Jackson Ministries, and today I want to point you to their podcast. It's called Culture and Christianity, the Alan Jackson Podcast. What makes it unique is Pastor Alan's biblical perspective. He takes the truth from the Bible and applies it to issues that we're facing today. Gender confusion, abortion, immigration, Doge, Trump, and the White House, issues in the church.

He doesn't just discuss the problems. In every episode, he gives practical things we can do to make a difference. His guests have incredible expertise and powerful testimonies. Each episode will make you recognize the power of your faith and how God can use your life to impact our world today. The Culture and Christianity podcast is informative and encouraging. You could find it on YouTube, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. Be sure to subscribe so you don't miss any episodes. Alan Jackson Ministries is working hard to get biblical truth back into our culture. You can find out more about Pastor Alan and the ministry at alanjackson.com. That is alanjackson.com. Again, that is alanjackson.com.

You spoke briefly about President Trump and kind of the success he's having in the U.S. right now. So what are your thoughts on basically the tariffs issue we've basically been seeing with the U.S.? I'm supportive. Look, we're talking about this, I'm sure, in the Q&A. Always look at the end result with Trump because the process can sometimes drive people mad and a little crazy and the up and down. But like in the first term, everyone was very critical of his Middle East policy. And then we got the Abraham Accords, which was an incredible accomplishment of peace between Israel and the Emiratis and the Saudis. And so there's a process that you have to allow unfold here. As far as the tariffs, the tariffs brought a lot of countries to the table.

You guys got actually a pretty good deal out of this. President Trump was generous enough to actually exempt Rolls-Royce and some of your major manufacturing in the latest bilateral trade deal with the United States. And I want to see our two countries grow closer together. And I think the president has the same wish. But as all the tariffs are eventually pointing at what we should, and this is the question for Europe, and this is the question for the United Kingdom. Will Europe and the United Kingdom decide to embrace the West? Or will it look very, very far to the East? The rising power struggle in front of us is all the things we've talked about, but it really is the Chinese Communist Party versus Western values. The Chinese Communist Party is antithetical to even those of you that are liberal in this audience right now,

is antithetical to what you believe and how are liberal in this audience right now is antithetical to what you believe and how you believe it. The CCP is the greatest threat to so many of these different things on the planet. And as it is this rising power, we have to reckon with this question, are we okay as America? I don't know if that's the case here in the UK. Are we okay with not making any of our own vitamin C, none of our antibiotics, none of our own critical pharmaceuticals? We do not make our own drone materials. In fact, we, none of our own critical pharmaceuticals. We do not make our own drone materials. In fact, we are supposed to make four submarines a year. We only make two submarines a year because we have to get the parts from China. And so I think there's a

vassal state problem that is presenting itself in the West where we have grown addicted to cheap products. And the Chinese, they do manufacturing very well. And you are underestimating the Chinese if you think it's just that it's cheap labor. They're very organized. They're very industrious. They take manufacturing seriously. Being the head of a manufacturing plant in China is like being a mayor of a small town. You have power. You have prestige. You have honor. You can call the local governor at any time. They prioritized it, and they knew that this was a way that they could enter into the global market. So tariffs are some ways a very um let's say provocative way to bring us to a conclusion that no western leader other than president trump has had the moral courage to actually bring out into the open which like hey guys this century will be defined as to who actually stands up

against china and it's better that we do it in 2025 other than 2045 because we might not have the chips to bargain against them thank you um on, I think China's response to that has been very much, you know, lax in terms of they don't care and kind of like retaliating with their own tariffs. Do you actually think they can get to a position where Trump and China can kind of like have a level playing field of an agreement? It's a good question. I don't know. So just for you following, it was like 180% tariffs and now it's at 30% tariffs. I can say that tariffs will remain on critical manufacturing for American, critical American goods. Now, if it's car seats or if it's

toys for girls, you know, like dolls or whatever, like that's not the critical stuff. Rare earth minerals, very critical. Every single one of the smartphones in your pocket requires a combination of rare earth minerals, most of which are mined and sourced in Chinese Communist Party China. Not because we don't have them in the West, but because all my friends that I'm sure I'll get a question from, you wonderful environmentalists, don't let us actually use our own rare earth minerals, but hey, it's somehow it's a different planet in China. So it's okay if they pollute, but not if we pollute, but if we import it, then, you know, we feel good about ourselves. And so essentially the phones, almost everything we have in the West has some Chinese component to it. So we need to triage this. We need to ask the question,

can we be self-sufficient if there is a rapid decoupling? And this is something that both our countries need to reckon with that we need to reconcile. And right now the answer is no. And I hope that we can bring back that not just manufacturing base, because people think like, what are you just going to make, you know, t-shirts and textiles? Well, yeah, that's part of it, but it's a lot deeper. There is a, there is a advanced manufacturing opening that's going to happen in the West right now around robotics and around drones. There will be a global supply of drones in the hundreds of millions in the coming decade. Drones are actually really, really hard to build when they're sophisticated.

It's not as easy as you might think. A lot of them come from China. A lot of them, the parts do. And so all of a sudden, if we're going to be comfortable with like a country that doesn't share our values, that is at best an adversary at worst than enemy, is going to all of a sudden control the stuff that's going to define the future. Yeah, check me out on that. So I support President Trump's strategy completely in that regard.

Thank you. You've characterized the Democratic Party as antagonistic to American ideals and argue that the Republican Party falls short of opposing the agenda. As someone who identifies as a conservative, how do you define the conservative movement today? And how do you think it should evolve to engage with the next generation? Yeah, thank you. It's a great question. How do I define being a conservative? Well, we as conservatives need to not just oppose. We need to stand for stuff. So what we oppose is very obvious.

We oppose the woke stuff. We oppose mass migration. We oppose the importation of these insidious values into our country and into the West. What do we stand for? I mean, we stand for what has worked, what is good, what is true, what is beautiful. We want to have the fertility rates reversed. We want to see church attendance go up. We want to see suicide rates take a 180 degree pivot. In our country, at least, we have the younger generation is the most suicidal, the most anxious, the most antidepressant, addicted generation history, and yet they're

the most wealthy and the most prosperous. So for anyone that just thinks that material conditions alone dictate happiness or well-being, the West is a flaming indictment of that claim. Mark's got some stuff right. He got some stuff really wrong. We are not just social material beings. There's something deeper here. And I believe, of course, that is the soul. And we want to try to have people look up. We want to have the people look back, that there's something beautiful that's been passed down, that there is a moral code that we have forgotten, that there is a root to our existence that we have cut off. And we as the West are reckoning with what Nietzsche unfortunately predicted way, way back when. And when he said God was dead, he was lamenting the death of God. But he also said the West is not going to know what to do with itself. And he basically predicted

the Third Reich, like you're going to get all these counterfeit, insane movements of nationalism and self-hatred and nihilism. And I believe the answer is not for us to create like a new moral code, which we failed to do, by the way, we have failed to do that. Why don't we just work? Why don't we just reinstitute and go back to what gave us the civilization in the first place, what is divine, what is everlasting. And as Tom Holland, I know he went to Cambridge, but you got to indulge me for a second. As Tom Holland would say in his book, Dominion, that whether you realize it or not,

whether you're a secular, atheist, Buddhist, Hindu, or Christian, if you live in the West, you are inheritor of a Christian tradition. The way we look at things, honor your neighbor, help the poor, charity, natural rights. These are somewhat weird ideas when you actually think about it. And instead of us trying to make a manufactured counterfeit new morality, we should go back to our Christian roots. Thank you. A more personal question on the idea of like

Christian youth and you being a very devout Christian. I remember speaking to your assistant during the vacation and he's saying you don't respond on a Sunday because you participate in Saturday actually. Yes. Yeah, that's right. Yeah, that's very astute. Yeah. So kind of like more, why do you kind of like, is that something you've taken from the Jewish tradition? Now I really like you. Now you ask the best question anyone's ever asked. I could talk about the Sabbath all day long. I don't know if anyone is interested in this, so you could roll your eyes. But I am, I'm a Christian. So whether or not we're bound to the Jewish Sabbath is hotly debated. There's great arguments for, great arguments against. I'm actually writing a book right now on why I honor the Sabbath.

It's very simple. It's called Stop in the Name of God, Why Honoring the Sabbath Will Change the World, basically. And it is an argument that in this hyper-materialistic, very fast, digitally frenzied world, that there is this gift that I believe the Lord gave the Hebrews that we have decided to just gloss over. And it's very simple. It's that for one day you will stop, that it will be holy, that it will be different. For those of you that are agnostic or not Christian, I still encourage you to do this. People that honor the Sabbath live longer. We know this with the Seventh-day Adventists. They actually are happier. They have better health outcomes. Everything about disconnecting from modernity is good for you. It isn't arguable. This is a material fact. But why is it that we

have forgotten it? Well, for me personally, I work like crazy for six days. On Friday night, even Sunday morning, I turn my phone off and I try to stop. I try to make it distinct. I try to make it different. It's where I do my best thinking. It's where I do my best time with my family. And again, this kind of goes back to, okay, we're trying to create all this new stuff. Like, wow, we're gonna have this new technological innovation. We're gonna have this vaccine and we're gonna be a solve this

with quantum mechanics and quantum computing. And I'm kind of like, honestly, something was told to us on Sinai that we shouldn't forget. That like, you shouldn't work for seven days. In the retelling of the 10 commandments in the book of Deuteronomy, the only difference of the retelling

of the 10 commandments is when Moses says, hey, you shouldn't work seven days because you're no longer a slave. What Moses is saying is like only slaves work for seven days, actually. And we in the West have kind of been slaves to our work. And I say this as a free market capitalist. That's not good. It's making us depressed. It's making us anxious.

And all of you have the agency to disconnect from that, to make a choice to no longer have to be subservient to the ever more, more, more next text, next alert, next email, you know, next WhatsApp message. And it kind of goes back to a theme I've been saying that it has worked. It's also a phenomenal civilizational preserving tool. It's worked for the Jews. They've been kicked out of a lot of countries and a lot of people have hated the Jews, including right now. And they're thriving and they're growing and they continue. I think God has given us a preservative for a civilization and I believe it is the Sabbath. Thank you very much. Just picking up on a comment you just made just then about a lot of people hating the Jews right now. Would you elaborate more specifically on what you're talking about?

Yeah, and not everyone who is against Israel hates the Jews, but everyone who hates the Jews is against Israel. So it's an important connection. Look, I mean, it's coming from both sides. We all see what's happening on social media. There is this kind of temptation to blame the Jews for all of your problems. I think it's sloppy and it's wrong. No group is perfect. No group is going to act in a directionally consistent way. But look, I think that it's, at least in my country, I don't know if you guys are seeing a similar rise in the United Kingdom, but I think that there is this temptation to say that all the world's suffering is because of a small group of people, many of whom I have not met. And I reject that wholeheartedly.

But would you say the criticism is of the Jews or of the state of Israel, which I think- Oh, no, those are two different things. So there are three issues here, and that's a very good question. And we must have the maturity to differentiate them. And in the Q&A, we could talk Israel, Gaza, whatever you want, obviously. But there is a difference between Jews, Israel, and the Israeli government. And I acknowledge those differences. So Jews are, you know, is a very complicated thing because it's a people, but it's also a religion, and it's an ancestry, but it's a culture. Almost nothing like it in the world, right? Where you're kind of born into it, and you can be like an atheistic Jew, but there's also like a religious text. And then there is Israel, which I believe is fundamental to Judaism. A God tore Israel is the informal,

like Trinity of Judaism. And then the Israeli government, you can support Jewish life and support Jews and support Israel, but not support this current Israeli government. It's a perfectly mature view to have. It's fine. Like I, I have a disagreement in Netanyahu. I have agreements. I think it's okay. But I actually think we could deescalate a lot of the finger pointing around this issue. If we look at it through that lens, that anyone who says like, oh, we're going to blame the Jews. Well, then that that's the first, like no one here rationally, I think if you believe that, then we could talk about it. But then if you're like, well, I don't think Israel should exist or I don't like Israel. Okay. That's another step, but that's a more reasonable argument when I wouldn't share. But then if you're

criticizing Israeli government. So where I think a problem emerges is where my side, where I am pro-Israel, we conflate those three things, and we immediately say that you're against Netanyahu, therefore you're against the Jews. I'm sorry, I think that's immature, it's sloppy, and it actually creates more resentment where it otherwise would not exist. Thank you. On the state of Israel in terms of its existence. Oh, here we go. Great. I was going to leave it to the Q&A, but we started. Just a question on your belief in the state of Israel existing in its current form. Is it biblical or is it just a political belief?

Okay. So you asked, is it biblical or what? So is your belief on this current state of Israel, where it is and how it's formed? Is that belief biblical? Got it. I'm not a theologian, but I am definitely more, let's say, aligned with a view of Ezekiel 36, that there is a reconstitution of the state of Israel. And that was prophesied. I will bring you from across the lands and graft you together. I don't want to get into that. Again, if you guys want to talk about end times theology, I'm honestly going to be like, let's get a more important question because I don't know it that well. I'm not that interested in it. It's called eschatology. There's pre-tribulation Christians, and then there's post-tribulation Christians. I'm pan-trib. It's all going to pan

out in the end. Jesus will return. I'm going to be on the welcoming committee, not the planning committee. And so like, I'm not, I'm not overly interested in that. I'm instead, I think what is lost, and I think I would like at least the anti-Israel advocates. I don't want to say anti-Israel, the critics of Israel that will come up and ask questions to acknowledge this, that it is miraculous that Israel in this current form exists. I mean, it's really unbelievable what Ben-Gurion and the Zionists were able to pull off from just the Zionist perspective. It is a miracle considering they were attacked from every direction, from its charter, completely under attack, and totally brutalized.

Number two, it's interesting because in the Balfour Declaration, as you will know, it actually was the smallest suggested size for Israel, as of all the four plans. All that to say, what do I believe about the current composition of the state of Israel? Well, my historical analysis of whether, you know, it should be formed or not, I actually think it should be, it's not that relevant. The more important moral question is what do you think about what is happening right now? Do you think that Israel has, I don't like the question, I think it's a little bit of a cop out, like, do you think Israel has a right to exist? I think more importantly, do you believe that a country has a right to be able to defend itself into existence? That's a more important question, that if a country can prove to itself,

that to you that it can exist, should it then be given recognition? So I don't know if that answers your question. It's kind of just the mind dump on the topic. I seek to actually find reconciliation on this. I think there is a downplaying what happens on October 7th to a great detriment. And I think that at times, those of us that are perennial need to acknowledge war is awful. War is brutal. I'm a Christian. I hate when I see these videos of these kids being killed. It's terrible. I want to see this come to an end. I mean, like who can possibly see that and support that? And anyone who's like, for example, Nikki Haley signing bombs that are going to be dropped in Gaza, like that's repulsive. I mean, it's terrible. I want to see this come to an end. I mean, like, who can possibly see that and support that? And anyone who's like, for example, like Nikki Haley signing bombs that are going to be dropped in Gaza, like that's repulsive. I'm sorry, that's disgusting. Okay. Like that's going to be used against people that shouldn't, like that are just complete

casualties in the war. And so yeah, I hope that offers some clarity on that. Thank you. But then in terms of the question of being pro-Israel and the right of Israel to exist, when Palestine very much exists and they're fighting for their own self-determination, how do you reconcile both? So I would push back a little bit. I think what some well-meaning Arabs are doing in the West Bank is righteous. What Hamas did on October 7th was not a fight for self-determination. I would find great exception to that claim. Going, 1,300 people going in on a holy day on Shemath Torah, 50 days after the Six-Day War on Shabbat to go to kibbutzes and a music festival to kill 1,300 people and take 200 hostages, all while filming it on GoPro cameras. And then some of which, not all, calling back to their relatives on WhatsApp saying, and then some of which, not all, calling

back to their relatives on WhatsApp saying, I just killed 10 Jews. Can you believe it? I just killed 10 Jews. I'm sorry, that's not a fight for self-determination. That's something horrific and brutal and evil that every human being with a conscience would say that's wrong, and we don't support that. And so, again, as far as this idea of self-determination, there are important, and these are not trap questions. The settlements make it very difficult in the West Bank. What is a Palestinian? What are the borders? Who's in charge? These are, again, and it also kind of goes back to this because I also have to throw it back. Some people believe that Palestine or whatever the state will be called, let's just call it PA, is from the river to the sea. Okay, so then you don't believe in a Jewish state. I come from the

premise that I think a Jewish state should exist. If you want a Palestinian state, tell me where, tell me who, tell me how, and I will be open-minded to hear that contention. But if it's nothing more than the eradication of Jewry between Jerusalem, the Tel Aviv, and Haifa, I'm sorry, that's where now we're blurring on the going backwards, not forwards from, okay, we're going from Israeli government to Israel to some problem with the Jews. Does that make sense? That kind of greed, that gradation of regression, I think is very harmful to the dialogue. Thank you. Moving on slightly topic wise, you've argued that systematic racism does not exist within US policing. However, many black and white Americans say black people are treated less fairly by the police and by the criminal

justice system at large. What evidence do you rely to support your view about systematic racism not existing in U.S. policing? Yeah, so I think you're saying it's not your fault. Systemic racism, right? Yeah, that's your grade. So, I mean, show me the data. A police officer is actually 18 and a half times more likely to be shot by a black person than vice versa. There's only about 12 unarmed black people in America that are shot every single year that are unarmed. It's true. According to the Washington Post data, it's only 10 to 15 people. And respectfully, you said black people say, I don't care what people say. Show me the evidence. People make stuff up all the time, and there's a self-confirming bias loop. Is there evidence of this? The evidence is very clear.

Black Americans make up 13% of the US population. They make up anywhere between 55% to 60% of the murders, the thefts, and the carjackings. There is a disproportional crime problem in America, and I don't like it. It's just what the data is. And again, I would prefer not to talk about race all the time, but the data is the data. When you commit more crimes, you have more interactions with the police, and therefore, when you have more interactions with the police, some of them might go sour. Thank you. So given that a lot of your data that you use about kind of like black people, arrests and convictions come specifically from kind of the arrests and convictions and not from the Crime Commission. How do you account for the fact that many crimes go unreported and unsolved, but also that black Americans are statistically more likely to be

wrongfully convicted? Okay, yes. So the wrongfully convicted, it might be right. It might not be right. It's more about the quality of your lawyer and the income level. And yes, black Americans are per capita poorer than white Americans. But I'll say something provocative. If we actually solved all the murders in Chicago, the black portion of murders would go up, not down. You know, only 50% of murders in Chicago get solved and they're most all in black densely neighborhood gang violence. So those don't even get reported in the crime statistics. So if we, if we solved every murder in Chicago, it would go up from 60% of the murders are black to like 75% of the murders are black. And so we actually have a major under unsolving problem in America of black violence. Most of it

is black on black violence that shouldn't care every human being matters like i don't actually like that talking point um very much what was the other did i answer that question or okay um and then my last question on the topic is then looking at systematic bias and over policing in poorer areas um which have an equal access to justice as you've discussed with things like being able to pay for a better lawyer and how they all contribute to the outcomes, would you say that actually it's a cultural kind of like impact in terms of poor neighborhoods creating crime? No, I have a totally different view. I think we need more police, not less police in these neighborhoods. In fact, in New York, when we started to enforce more heavy policing in black

only neighborhoods, murder rates went down. Murder rates went down dramatically. Theft went down dramatically. And so the question is actually not too much police. It's lack of policing. In America, we have two measurable correlative effects. It's called the Ferguson effect and the Floyd effect. These are two major race hysterias that occurred in our country. And that subsequent after we saw the police retreat, because they say, we're not welcome here. We're going to be called things not. That's not true. And we saw crime rates skyrocket. In fact, the murder rate in America post-Floyd went to record levels we hadn't seen since the 1990s, which thankfully we brought down over the last 20 to 30 years. I don't know how you guys view police here in the UK. Police are constantly under attack in America. They're very much maligned. They're very much criticized and

scrutinized. Generally, I think police are trying to do the right thing. They are there to help you. They're there to support you. And when there is violence or crime, you want to have a police officer around. And there is a direct correlation in the States. The amount of police officers in a densely populated area equals to the level of violent crime. More police officers equals less violent crime. Thank you. My next question is about some of the views you've expressed regarding being trans. So you've previously expressed the view that people who identify as trans are part of a social contagion due to causes such as bullying and autism. Why do you hold this position and what evidence do you have to support this position? I mean, it's true. I mean, first of all, you can't be what you are not, very fundamentally.

So if you are a man, you can't become a woman. If you're a woman, you can't become a man. As far as the bullying, I mean, we know this because of the skyrocketing rates of peer pressure, social contagion data. In fact, the CAST report was one of the most interesting ones. You guys are actually better on the trans issue than us. Don't mess it up, guys, please. Your Supreme Court actually defined, I think, what was it, like a man is a man and a woman is a woman, like they actually had clarity on this topic recently. By the way, you all can agree that J.K. Rowling is a hero, yes? So funny how the left will no longer applaud their heroes when you differentiate from the faith. Everyone loved J.K. Rowling. She's wonderful. Make her a dame. She's

the best. Oh, she says that a woman is a woman and a man is a man. Crucify her. Think about it. You know I'm right. People say, I don't see much of J.K. Rowling. I wonder why? Because the zealots no longer allow her because the puritanical view of the trans does not allow such dissension or disagreement from one of your former heroes. Okay, to your question. Yeah, look, as far as my evidence, Dr. Miriam Grossman has a great book on this called Lost in Transnation. The emergent, that's true. You guys can laugh all you want, but there's something sick and medieval and awful about chopping off a 14-year-old's breast just because they're going through a momentary time of puberty anxiety. Something that your own

government has recognized with the Cass Report, and I encourage you to read it. And you guys were like the leader of gender-affirming care, puberty transition surgery in London. And thankfully, because of some sane minds in this country, you guys have slowed it down to either a halt or I think completely closed. I know there's been some debate of chemical interventions versus surgical. I don't know if that probably doesn't answer your question, but a man is a man and a woman is a woman. Thank you. And then my last question before I throw it to the audience is Turning Point USA is known for advocating for free speech on college campuses. What do you see as the biggest threat to free expression in higher education today? The left. Would you like to elaborate?

Well, you've been great, I have to say. Much better than Cambridge. She's been terrific. The Cambridge one, she read my Wikipedia. She was like, well, in this part of the Wikipedia, I was like, what are you doing? You go to Cambridge. Well, that explains it, right? That explains it. My challenge, and you guys have been great.

I have to give you all credit. I've said some things that you would think would be provocative. In the States, what I've said is actually now mainline conservatism, because we've moved that Overton window rather dramatically. My wish for the left is that you will become liberal again, and no longer leftist. Free speech is a liberal value. It is not a left-wing value. It is wrong, and I'm sure we'll talk about this in the Q&A, but as of today, Lucy Connolly is going to jail for two and a half years in this country for a social media post that she apologized and deleted about a migrant hotel. That is not a free speech value at all. You should be allowed to say outrageous things. You should be allowed to say outrageous things.

You should be allowed to say contrarian things. Free speech is a birthright that you gave us and you guys decided not to codify it and now it's poof, it's basically gone. And I think there's something really troubling about that because I want you to imagine one day that reform might take over this government. You guys can laugh,

but they're winning elections in downtown London. Farage is ascendant. There is a silent majority in this country. I see this. Oh, I'm going to really scare you. I see the same themes that led to Trump's rise in this country. I see it with the working class in the streets of London. I see the muscular class.

I see people coming up to me. It's the same vibe. You guys are about to see a political revolution. If the stars align, that could mirror what happened in America. So when that happens, do you want Nigel Farage, prime minister, to be able to lock you up if you criticize his government? If your answer is no, then you have a moral obligation to make sure that your prime minister and the MPs advocate for a value-neutral free speech policy. So regardless of who is in power in this country, you guys can challenge and you guys can speak openly.

That is the bedrock of a liberal democracy. Thank you so much. that works for your monthly budget. YRefi offers a three-minute rate check without any credit impact. Call 888-YRefi34 or log on to YRefi.com. That is Y-R-E-F-I.com. That's YRefi.com. Do you have a co-borrower? Well, YRefi can get them released from the loan and you can give mom or dad a break. Go to YRefi.com. That is YRefi.com.

You don't have to ignore that mountain of student loan statements on your kitchen table anymore. Go to YRefi.com. That is Y table anymore, go to Yrefy.com. That is Y-R-E-F-Y.com. Again, Yrefy is amazing. If you know anybody in your life that has privacy loan debt, a sister, a brother, an uncle, an aunt, anybody that might have struggled with privacy loan debt, Yrefy is the solution. That's right. Yrefy is the solution. So check it out right now. WhyRefi.com. And I'm going to shoot to Q&A. So would you like the show trial will begin?

I think one of the best ways to bolster an argument, to construct an argument is to foresee potential counter arguments and to address them. And because you've been doing this for quite some time and you're well-versed in what you believe in your ideologies and your beliefs, if you were in my position, what would you ask yourself that would be most effective in challenging those core tenets? Thank you for that question. I didn't expect that. So respectful and like thoughtful. I don't know if you're a left liberal or not. I don't know. But it's implied in your question that you are be wrong and that you might learn something. And you guys go here to a ridiculously old institution that has some of the greatest thinkers that I admire, Tolkien, Lewis, I mean, the list goes on. And I don't, again, I don't know

the core canon of what you are studying, but I can definitely tell you in America, there is a de-emphasis of the thinkers and of the writers that were once, let's just say, embedded within the core curriculum of a place like this. And I would encourage all of you that are intellectually honest, that are on the left, that are liberals, to know what conservatives believe better than conservatives. Read our literature. Read C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity. Go read Edmund Burke. Go read Russell Kirk, of which I share a name, no relation. Go read Milton Friedman.

Understand it. Spend time with it. Treat it with respect. Don't just do it as a passerby. Because the very few, and there is a couple, right-wing students in this room, they've done that to all the left-wing ideas. No, it's fine. I'm calling them out.

Because they've done that with the left-wing ideas. They've had to. You cannot proceed in many universities without having to reckon and reconcile with that. So I hope that answers your question. Thank you. I just want to quickly follow on from that. I did my undergrad in the U.S. What school? Michigan State. Oh did my undergrad in the US. And so- What school? Michigan State.

Oh, go Spartans, yeah. And so here and there, I've been labeled leftist, rightist. So I've heard it all. I hate labels, honestly. You seem very sweet. Thank you. And I wanted to know if you believe that, I know your views on college education, specifically in the US, and that you believe that it does not deliver what it should. Do you think that whether right or wrong, that because you don't have that degree, your influence within society might be restricted compared to, for example, Jordan Peterson? Yes. I'm sorry to

interrupt you. Keep going. You're exactly right. This is a barrier that I have to overcome. I did not go to university or college. I just went straight into doing stuff. And the criticism I get is, well, you didn't go to college, therefore you're not capable of dialoguing. That is inherently an argument from authority. But yes, that is a good argument if you want to be taken seriously, because it's of course a barrier. It actually only motivates me more to learn more and to dive deeper and to become better understanding of these ideas. But yes, there is a, at least in the states of which you studied your undergrad, there is an emphasis on the credential. However, that also

plays into my core argument as the indictment of the current state of the academy. If it is a credential, then it's a very expensive, time-intensive credential just to be able to have people take you more seriously. And that is kind of like the downfall of what do you do instead of like, where did you go? And I don't like that. Right, thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. I wanted to ask you about something you've probably never talked about. Never? Yeah. Abortion. Oh, yeah. Now, if you make an argument I never heard, I will give you great credit. So, yeah, I wanted to basically try to determine whether you, as you, I believe, suggest, believe that abortion in case of rape should be illegal because of the absolute, because of the right to life being absolute.

Or that the right to life is supposed to be weighted against autonomy and freedom. But just the burden of carrying a child of a rapist is simply insufficient to justify abortion. And if I may, I would use a thought experiment for that. Is it the violinist? A modified version. See, I've heard it all, man. So you got it. It's Oxford. You got to go deeper, man. I'm going to be honest. I got hundreds of hours on this topic. Give me something I haven't heard. It is deeper. So the question is whether you would, if anyone doesn't know the argument, I'm going to just spell it out in the modified version. So the Society of Music Lovers has determined that your wife is the only person that can save the life of a famous violinist. They have kidnapped her and their circulatory systems are currently attached. She can detach from the violinist. They have kidnapped her and their circulatory systems are currently attached.

She can detach from the violinist. It will be safe for her, but it will lead to the violinist's death. The question is, would you be willing to force her to stay attached to the violinist for nine months? And then the next question is, would your answer change if it was 10, 11, 12 months, her whole life? If perhaps she was supposed to be bedridden for the whole time to increase, for the sake of seeing what happens if the burden significantly increases? Well, the second part of the question is irrelevant because it's only for nine months. So keep it applicable to the topic at hand, correct? Otherwise, it's a completely irrelevant moral question. Secondly, just to be clear, you're not kidnapped when you get pregnant. So I don't quite understand the analogy, right?

Number three, yes. I mean, I always found this analogy outrageous. If you're asking me or my wife, my wife would answer, if I have to suffer for nine months so that another being will assuredly get life, I will do that. That's how she would answer. Yeah. So the question is, whether drive of life is absolute or whether some level of inconvenience can be taken into account or rather burden can be taken into account and weighed against it. In this case, I'm asking, what if it was, for example, for her whole life? Because, well, it's not irrelevant. I haven't thought deeply about it, honestly, but it's not relevant because pregnancy is at a nine-month

window. So it's not relevant to my abortion view. Well, the burden is also different of being attached to someone, a violinist. The burden is completely different to carrying a child of a rapist. So I do acknowledge that the burdens are different. The question is whether there is a burden that could be weighed against the right to life. And if in this case, you just believe that... The only burden would be life for the mother. So you would force your wife... Okay, hold on a second. No, I would be willing to do whatever is necessary

to not have a human being eliminated. And I guess, is it a human being in the womb? Yes or no? Yes. Then why don't you give the human being rights? Well, that's what I'm trying to just... No, ask the question. Why does that human not get rights?

And you do. Well, my question is... No, answer the question. Why does that human not get rights? And you do. Well, my question is... No, answer the question. Why do you get rights and the baby doesn't? I'm not saying it doesn't. Yeah, your right to life. Eliminate it. That's the first and most fundamental right of the West.

Why don't you get that right to the baby? Well, I'm not saying I'm not. Yes, you are. No, I'm not. I'm asking whether you would force your wife. Well, hold on a second. Do you... Very fundamentally, do you believe that every human being has a right to life,

regardless how small you are or what level of development that you are on? I do believe that every person does have a right to life. You do not believe that? I do. Okay, then we agree. Abortion should be eliminated, not loved. And you would force your mother, sorry, you would force your wife to stay with a violinist. Again, you are gruesomely describing a universal truth

that we will protect life no matter how small or level of development in the environment or the degree of dependency. And again, I will throw it back to you because it's very easy to use this analogy to make it seem like I'm unreasonable, but you're actually the unreasonable one here saying that I will eliminate the human being

just because for what reason? There is no excuse for murder, period. We believe that in the West, correct? Now you want to make the self-defense argument, we can go back there. I've heard every argument. They've heard that the baby's a parasite. I've heard the baby's an invader. I've heard the baby that is, you know, currently taking the nutrients. None of them are morally applicable to the actual circumstance of gestation, period. Every human being has a right to life. You can check your notes again if you'd like, but every human being has a right to life. You can check your notes again if you'd like. But every human being has a right to life.

Yes or no? It's what built the West. Well, it's what I'm asking. It's the only thing I wanted to ask. You got your answer. No, I understand. What you are doing is a rhetorical trap. I've answered it completely, which is this.

I stand for the abolition of abortion in all circumstances against life of the mother because life matters. Every human being, I believe, is made in the image of the divine, is sacred, is unique. And if we get away from this principle as we have, we not only have moral degradation, we not only have the collapsing society around us, but it's bad for that being itself. That being itself is unique. That being has rights. And who are we to say, just because we're older, that we get to murder it. Thank you. I likewise have an abortion-related question. So the Constitution refers to citizens and persons, but it does not explicitly define when life begins.

In your view, who should define this question when we have a near split of liberals and conservatives in our country? Specifically, Alabama and Delaware have defined the start of life differently. Alabama treats the question as life beginning at conception. Since you can't kill a person, you're not permitted to get an abortion. Whereas Delaware defines the start of life at the time when the fetus is viable outside of the mother. Therefore, Delaware permits abortion up until viability at about 24 to 26 weeks. Since it's not in the Constitution, who should make a countrywide decision when liberals and conservatives have answered this question differently? It's a good question. Right now, the answer, the Supreme Court has said,

the localist jurisdiction possible. And then we'll work our way up from there. We aim to abolish abortion the same way we aim to abolish slavery in the 1860s. And they are moral equivalents. In fact, one is arguably worse. So the states should decide. Yeah, that's what it is. Yeah. Right now, the local jurisdiction, you can get down to the county level. We have county hospitals that have issues on this. We have jurisdiction. So the most local, the better. That will de-radicalize the position and give us space to make the moral argument, which I continue to be on a quest to do so. And you would therefore respect Delaware's position on this matter? Well, I mean, yes,

the states have sovereignty to do that for the time being. But of course, we are going to push for a national vote when we win the people's minds. My position on abortion is unpopular in my country. I don't want to scare you guys too much. I am in the vast minority of my own political party on this issue, proudly, because I'm morally correct. I'm on the right side of history. When all the chips are down and when all the biology is settled, it will be very simple and very clear that we have made every excuse in the book to try to eliminate life smaller than us for simply inconveniences. So yes, right now we respect Delaware, we respect Michigan, respect all of that, but we have all intents to march every way

through the institutions, from the cultural places of power and eventually political, to abolish abortion in America. Thank you. Thank you. Hey, Charlie. So I wanted to return to a comment you made earlier about the generation of lost boys. You likened them to the Peter Pan movie. Oh, okay. Yeah. So when we're talking about, we're talking about Red Bull media as being a large influence. And I wanted to define that. It's a reference to the matrix in which a lot of these media heads come in. Yeah. Talk about unplugging yourself um and it's about waking up to the realization that um you know there is a active attack on masculinity that uh men's rights need to be you know uh that men are being oppressed in a way and that men's rights need to be advocated for. And, you know, many people have attributed the red pill media to rise in like this almost generation of lost boys.

I kind of wanted to get your opinion on kind of like, do you see this generation of lost boys as a failure of like, say, masculinity? Or are there potential other factors, economic, social factors, such as, you know, the death of the American dream, increasing costs of living in America, increased cost of education. Are there like any other reasons as to why this generation of lost boys might exist? Or do you basically? Yes, I acknowledge all of that. Of course. One of them, it's a very good faith question. And thank you. In America, we made a stupid decision in the 1970s, 80s and 90s, to shut down our factories in the middle part of the country and basically disenfranchise and deindustrialize tens of millions of working class men and tell them to go move to the cities and learn to code. I said this in the previous Q&A, but I can again, which is that men, a family used to be able to be supported on a single income of 35 weeks of labor a year. Now it takes upwards of 60 weeks of labor a year. Now it takes

upwards of 60 weeks of labor a year. However, given all the economic and social and all those factors, the largest of all of them is the cultural and the educational that has infantilized men and hyper-feminized them in the messaging, in the outreach, and in the treatment. And so I can give you specific examples. Yeah, in what way has the education system infantilized men? I mean, every possible way from the hypermedication of young men from in the core curriculum in America,

we learn about toxic masculinity from ages eight in public schools in California and in New York. We never talk about toxic femininity. Do you agree that there's toxic femininity as well? I mean, I think it's an unfair double standard. Why? How can femininity not be toxic if masculinity can? I'm not saying they can't be. Do we teach kids about toxic femininity in our schools? No, tell me yes or no. I mean, I think that they come from two very different places. I think toxic masculinity comes from

a level of misogyny, where I think toxic femininity often comes from a reaction to a misogynistic system, which fundamentally oppresses and systematically oppresses women. And I'm not saying that toxic femininity is a good thing. I'm saying it's a much more understood and valid reaction to a system of oppression versus toxic masculinity, which oppresses. Okay. So, even if I grant you that, even if I grant you that, are they teaching toxic... Has that term ever been used in a school that you know of? What term?

Toxic femininity. No, it's not. Oh, that's weird. So only one sex gets criticized and called toxic. Maybe that creates a backlash. Because one is creating a system of oppression. Oh, no, that's your interpretation. No, you can make every excuse under the book that you'd like,

but only one chromosome set gets criticized, called that they're terrible and awful, and that women basically need to go into the corporate world with no reservation, and young men see this pattern in the West and in our country from the authors, from the curriculum, from the music, from the movies, and we see, and of course, again, in the educational system proper, we have seen the infantilization of the young male. And so it's just, again, we know the data, you did agree to it, that young men are

checking out completely, but we're actually living under a hyper-feminist West that is toxic. What does that mean? Speech police, feelings first, emotion over reason, community over individualism. We're seeing this. And by the way, is it working? Is the West stronger as it's become more feminine in the last 30 years? No. In fact, our morale is weaker. We're more suicidal. Our fertility rates are down. We have lost the balance. We've lost the yin and the yang between the male and the female. We lost what worked and we have hyper-platformed. Your own crime minister, Boris Johnson, when he was talking at a summit, said we need to actually make things more feminine. Could you imagine if he said we need to make things more masculine? How does that sound to a dock worker in Brighton or someone in Essex? We need to make things more feminine? No. Instead, we need to restore the balance that God created men and women. And of all, doesn't exist. Secondly, is like a slow motion,

like humiliation ritual for the young boys of Britain. Could you imagine if there was a similar movie criticizing young women that are like how they are the ones that are driving men away about how catty they are, about how they don't want to be. No, it's fine. I'll just complete the point. I could give you data point after data point, and I would ask you the question, has the West grown stronger the more effeminate it has become? Okay. You've said a lot. Yes. That's how a Q&A works. You ask the question and I answer, so I am the speaker. You know that's how it works. Okay, so on your point about adolescence,

I don't think adolescence is a generalization. We are not saying that every young boy in the UK is like this. We're not saying every young boy goes through this process. It's an example of what can happen when people fall into this kind of media. I think it's like, and it's more of a story or warning to what can happen to people that you know fall into these bubbles who don't find the help that they necessarily need that can turn violent and like this is a perfect example of toxic masculinity in which the boy feels like he's

not affirmed in his masculinity and takes that out on women like that uh we've also then seen like within men like the largest contributor to like men's deaths right now is male suicide like um but i would argue that is not a factor of feminization but instead a factor of masculinity the idea that men can't be in touch with their feelings you talked about feeling first approach being effeminate so men are simply not allowed to engage with their feelings at all are like men not allowed to talk about their feelings these are large contributors to a massive problem within men's spaces that lead to what is the highest contributor to men's death suicide and i think this idea that you know men simply go back to work and uh if they're economically assured then suddenly

everything is fine and you know men's mental health was never an issue before like the 90s when or whatever it was when we used to start affirming men's mental health, I think is an unfair, it's an unfair point to make. And I think it doesn't speak to a lot of issues that a lot of young men face. And I think it's a dishonest way to go about talking about this conversation. Okay, so which part would you like me to respond to? Let's go to the point about male suicide and masculinity not being allowed to function. So your point, if it was true that men have always been miserable, why have the suicide rates gone up? Well, because we've started recording suicides better.

It's not to say that suicides didn't occur on this level. It's just we simply have better ways of recording. That's rubbish. Body bags are data that transcends any sort of manipulation. A self-inflicted gun wound or being hung was not like a mass reporting issue 60 years ago in this country or in the West. It is a material fact because we know it's happening in the Anglosphere. It's happening in Australia. It's happening in America.

It's happening all across Europe that suicide rates of men are going up. Depression is going up. They are correlated together. It's not a reporting issue. There's something undergirding it. And in fact, just one other thing, your own prime minister endorsed adolescence. He sent out a tweet saying, I was shocked to the core when I watched this film and everyone should watch it. So that is an endorsement from the top leader, other than, you know, the king of this country of endorsement. I don't even know, may the king endorse that. I mean, an endorsement is not a generalization.

Well, hold on. No, no. He said, I'm troubled to the core of what this could become. And you have to, again, that is one example of thousands that I could give, one that is the most applicable to here to this country. And I guess I would just ask this question in closing. Do you think men would be happier if they are married and providing for a family? I don't think marriage or the institution of marriage is the only way a man can be happy. That's not what I said. I said

generally happier. Do you think men will be generally happier if they're married, providing, and have children? I don't think that is, I don't think that's a necessary factor to contribute to men's happiness. What, then what is your solution to bring about male happiness in the West? Mine is men get married, have children, and provide. What is yours? That's a big question. I think an affirmation of their emotions, their emotional states. I think an openness to allowing men to express themselves in whichever way they want, even if that is in a more effeminate way or a Western typically effeminate way. I don't think it's about ostracization. I don't think it's about promoting one simple institution of living and disregarding all of those else. Men are free to live single. Men are free to be in gay relationships. I don't think that the institution of

marriage privileges one to a life of happiness over any other way of living. So, of course, you have the agency to do that. With all due respect, have you been to London the last 10 years? Men can do whatever they want. I live in London. Are they happier? Men can dress how they want. Men can act how they want and go to any club.

Has it worked? Yeah, but also we've had austerity. There are other factors outside of simply just like cultural factors. Do you see what you're doing? Respectfully, you're scrambling for an excuse to get away from the truth that's right in front of you. Maybe men should get married and have children. Okay, but I think... Because it's worked for 2,000 years.

I just think it's a very dishonest way to go about this argument that there's only one issue. Interesting. Can I challenge you on that, though? Sure. Why is it that the men of much poorer African and Asian countries don't have suicide issues, yet they have no money? How do we know that? Oh, we know, again, by empirical third-party reported data from the UN, from the U.S. State Department, there is not a suicide crisis in sub-Saharan Africa. There's not a suicide crisis in Southeast Asia with young men. So explain to me that phenomenon. They're materially wealthy,

they're not materially wealthy, and yet they're harming themselves. So why would you then say it's austerity? Sorry, say that again. Okay, you're looking for another explanation for male unhappiness. I'm pointing to you to a part of the world that actually does value marriage and does have children, but they have no money. So therefore, how could you say it is a material problem why the men of London, who can dress how they want,

go to whatever bar they want, are not happy? Because it's more than one reason. There are multiple factors. It's not even just economic. There's economic, there's social, there's religious pressures. You cannot boil down a societal issue to one issue. And I acknowledge that. Even at the beginning, remember,

I'm saying the biggest, the one that has an exponent on it is that we have a biological urge that God gave us when he designed us, which is to be fruitful and multiply for men to provide for the family. And when we suppress that and we say that you can go

live whatever lifestyle you would like, as already happens in the West, we have exhibit A. We have a serious suicide, mental health, anxiety, depression issue. So I would just ask you to think over the next couple of days, months, or years, why is it that men in countries that barely have toilets and do not have two pounds to rub together, but they do have kids and they do have a wife, are much happier than someone with a big flat in downtown London. Something to think about. I mean, I think happiness is a difficult idea to conflate in that sense. I mean,

they're less likely to kill themselves. Forget all these happiness indexes. If you kill yourself, you're not happy, right? So these poor countries do not have male suicide problems. Why? I do not know. Think about it. Thank you very much. If you want to make sense of the change and the chaos happening around us, you're going to need God's help. That's why Alan Jackson Ministries, a friend of mine, created the Culture and Christianity Podcast, the Culture and Christianity Conference, and their weeknight news show, Alan Jackson Now. Millions of people also listen to Pastor Alan Jackson's powerful sermons each week,

I do, on radio, television, satellite, and online. In today's world, there's desperate need for truth, and Alan Jackson Ministries feels a sense of urgency to deliver God's truth and a biblical perspective to anyone who will listen. We can't afford to be complacent. Their mission is to help people become more fully devoted followers of Jesus Christ, which is the most important thing, giving your life to the Lord, including here on The Charlie Kirk Show. Go to alanjackson.com slash charlie.

That is alanjackson.com slash charlie to find recent podcasts, shows, and sermons. Be informed. Find encouragement. Hear the truth delivered in a way that just makes sense. You'll also find books, studies, prayers, and other tools to help you grow in your faith. Again, that's alanjackson.com slash charlie. alanjackson.com slash charlie. This is our time to make a difference.

Check it out right now. You've spoken a little bit about your belief in the sanctity of life and the inviolable dignity of the human person. I take it that you accept evolution. It depends what you mean by that. Do you think we've evolved from primates? I don't know. Okay.

But I do believe in the biblical account of creation. I also acknowledge that there is an abundance of scientific research that shows adaptation. Species change is heavily inferred in the data. I don't know enough about it, but I believe the scriptures to be true. And you can be a theist and also believe in God-ussured evolution. Yeah, I completely agree. Of which I allow people much smarter than me to make determinations on that. It's completely irrelevant to my core theology, though. Okay. Are you happy for me to proceed with the question now on that basis?

Sorry, yeah, I didn't mean to interrupt you, but yeah. No, that's fine. So you're kind of vaguely, not vaguely, but you seem generally happy with the idea that maybe evolution is true. I hope that that's the case. Well, actually, I don't believe that. I think that I actually, I'm not saying, you said happy to that evolution is true. Not necessarily happy. That was the word you used though, right? Okay, fine. Willing to accept that based on the evidence, evolution is a fact. No, I'm not saying it's a fact. I'm actually, again, I say I'm open to have my mind moved,

and I look at the data, but I believe, given the abundance of equal data that atheists must reckon with, that there is a fine-tuning problem to our existence that I believe warrants that there is a God, intelligent life came from a God, and I believe the scriptures to be true. In the creation account, there is an allowance to say that God created the heavens and the earth and allowed us to either evolve through species.

I happen to believe through a faith claim that human beings are designed. What that means is designed over a long period of time or designed immediately. That's for people smarter than me to determine. Fine. I suppose what I'm getting at is if you believe in the sanctity of life and that there is something fundamentally different between the life of say for instance a human being and the life of an animal does that not make that claim slightly arbitrary what is kind of what is personhood based in if not so do you see what i'm getting sort of the scriptures say though that god created humans male and female distinct they're the only ones in genesis 126 27 to made in the image of God. And so

he called animals good, but they are not image bearers. But that word create is barach in Hebrew, and it's not clear whether or not that is created in an instant over a long period of time. And we as believers, I find no contradiction into saying that God could have created an instant of which I would be pleased. I'll ask God when I get to heaven, how this all unfolded, or was it a process of adaptation and species change? Very smart Christians are on both sides of this issue. And so there's what we call in Christianity, closed-hand theological issues and open-hand theological issues. Closed-hand issues would be like the resurrection of Christ, the Trinity, and then there's open-handed, which would be like eschatology or the Eucharist or the creation account. This one allows, given the verbiage, it could be either way.

Fine. I think just, I don't want to take up too much time then, but just kind of on that, you're talking a little bit about Christian values, and I'm intrigued by that. I get the sense that you're very much motivated by your faith. To what extent do you think Donald Trump embodies gospel values? Yes. So he reminds me very much of Samson in the Bible. You can laugh. How many of you guys actually know about Samson? Great hair. He was a man willing to fight for a cause greater than he, despite some of his own moral troublings and moral missteps. All throughout the Bible You could say a lot. Donald Trump has never murdered anybody. But Moses is like the most revered man in Judaism. He was a murderer in Egypt. He took someone aside and just slammed him in the head and actually had to flee all the way to Midian because of it. We're all flawed. We all have original sin. How do I reconcile what he's doing with gospel values? Well, for instance, I mean, the gospel values to me would be, you know,

humility, compassion, forgiveness. Does he live according to those values, do you think? I actually, at times, I will say he's far more magnanimous than people will give him credit. None of us are able to fill all those values. I will say some values that I think he does fulfill. He is a truth teller. And the gospel says very clearly that telling of the truth is one of the most fundamental things, the spoken word. So I'm not going to spend time here defining every moral decision that Donald Trump has made or not made. I am equally a sinner as Donald Trump. We all are. We all fall short of the glory of God. But I will say that his willingness to rise to the occasion of something greater than he, to endure being shot and almost shot again in almost 700 years in federal prison,

is one of the most courageous actions I've ever seen from a public elected official in the history of the West. Do you think Jesus would have voted for Trump? Do I think Jesus? Well, first of all, Jesus intentionally didn't vote and did not care about the Roman guard. You remember he said, pay into Caesar, what does Caesar render under God's? What is God? Do I think Jesus would love some of the stuff that Trump is doing? It's a silly question, but I'm just, you know. No, I mean, fine. It's like, what did Jesus teach us? Jesus says, don't touch children. Okay, so he would love the fact that Donald Trump repealed Roe versus Wade. He would love the fact that child sex trafficking is being focused on in this current government.

Jesus Christ said a lot of things such as, you know, sin no more. And things such as love your neighbor are things that we should embody in every single one of our public policy decisions. So Jesus is divine, and he would not fill out a ballot. All right. Thank you for answering my questions. I want to take a back on South Africa. You talk about South Africa, and obviously the Expropriation Act of 2024 is kind of a really big issue. I think to start off from the outset, I should mention that I also don't agree about the more terrible slogans.

Cue the boars, obviously, I think is terrible. But I think it's good to have context where the Expressionist Act is coming from. And I think drilling down a little bit, I want to pick your thoughts based on the fact that white South Africans only account for about 10% of the population, and they own about 72% of private land in South Africa. And I think it's always really good also to pretty much draw back a little bit from the historic background behind it. I think it goes back to about 1913, the Native Arts land, which severely, disproportionately discriminates against black South Africans from owning land in South Africa.

And that's what's caused much of the disparity that we see economically. So I wanted to find out from you, what are your thoughts? And obviously, the Trump administration has really been big on what's going on in South Africa at the minute, and the act itself that they enacted. So do you think it's a moral obligation that obviously you're talking about that the land that was expropriated back in the days historically and that was a colonial endeavor altogether, does that land need to be returned to black South Africans?

No. So I know dangerously little about this. And so again, what I said on stage is what I know. So I'm going to have to understand I'm an American. I'm just trying to educate myself on UK politics. And so you will probably know more about this than I will, but is it not true? And then you can correct me in the last 20 years, they've tried some form of reparations with black South Africans. Yeah, absolutely. Is that correct? Maybe I'm wrong.

Yes, it's been, but it's not worked. So the BBE for instance. Okay, so time out. So wait, so taking stuff from one group and giving it to blacks doesn't work? Well, it does work, but I'll give you context as well. You just said it doesn't work. Well, I'll give you context. You contradicted yourself, so educate me.

I don't know enough, but you just contradicted yourself. You went from it doesn't work to it does work, so please. I'll give you context as well. So what they did is they did have a program called the Black Empowerment Economic Program. And pretty much what they did is for every corporation, they would have to incorporate black people within it. But that's not worked really well. And what we've seen over time is that a lot of black people that have been part of those organizations have only been a minority. So pretty much, as you mentioned, what?

You talked about DEI. So it's pretty much checking a box, right? You have a black person within the senior management group, but it's only probably two people and the like, and that's pretty much it. But the majority of black South Africans that do not own any land, because obviously the historic context that I give,

cannot pretty much be able to earn a good living because, I mean, with land also comes economic opportunity, and that's been the biggest disparity in South Africa. And excuse my ignorance on this. I want to understand, though, is that the land owned by black South Africans is actually not as productive as those owned by the Boers. Is that correct?

Well, at the minute, 72% of private land, agricultural land, is owned by white South Africa. No, I understand that. So only a minority. Fair enough. But the 28%, when compared to boar-run farms, are actually not as productive because running a farm in South Africa is very difficult. Yes. Am I correct by saying that? Well, context again.

Well, I just want to make sure I'm clear that actually running a farm for over 100 years is actually really impressive. 100%. Yeah, so we agree on that. Yes, we agree on that. So thank you, because again, I don't know enough about this, but I do think that that's important to note that even the black South Africans that own land, it actually is not as fruitful or has the same yields as those that have been doing it for over 100 years in a time when there's actually food instability in the region and in South Africa.

But obviously, what I'll say is, I mean, over time, if, say, you did have an act that expropriates land from black South Africans, you need to build capacity over time. And I think the governors are doing that for the minority black people that own agricultural farmland in South Africa, and they've been doing that. But also, we can't deny the fact that if you control supply chains for over a century, right, then it means that you pretty much control the economy, right? So how best do you think, obviously, the land was taken from black people and South Africans,

why South Africa has been pretty much, you know, improving the economic outcomes over time. What do you think is the best way to break even in that sense? Fair question. And I just want to make one point to you. Obviously, you look at key philosophers as well, like Robert Nozick, for instance. He talks about equality in terms of acquisition, as well as the process through which you acquire that land,

and obviously correcting the injustice that comes out of it. So what would be your thoughts on that? I'm not familiar with the philosopher you mentioned. Who was the name again? Robert Nozak. He's a very prominent philosopher. I'll look at it. Sure, thank you for that.

I don't know enough about South Africa to suggest anything. Here's what I could tell you, that race-based politics is really bad. I know this because I'm living in my country. And I think that South Africa should get away from race obsession and should get towards something that is rooted in merit and empowerment. South Africa is what, 75% black? Is that correct? 80%? Maybe. Yeah, that's right. Right. And so explain to me like post-apartheid, outside of the land ownership, maybe there's a business element. Why is it that once a part-time was removed, why black South Africans were not able to see their material economic net worth go up in the last 20 or 30 years?

Do you think there's any, and maybe I don't know enough, are there any cultural inhibitions of a defeatist attitude that has basically, let's say, infected the minds of poor South Africans last 20 years that feel as if they can't accumulate wealth? Do you think that plays a factor? Yeah, I think what's really infected Black South Africans is pretty much going back to what we're talking about. Obviously, from the colonial background that I just gave you, and we see a lot of like neocolonialistic control of supply chains, and you own 72% of agricultural farmland, how do you expect the minority, well, the majority of black people to improve their lives and their outcomes when you pretty much control everything?

And so this is a sloppy, but best example I can give. Is that fair? I'll do a little bit. So just grant me some mercy here. What percentage of American land is owned by Asians? Not sure. Yeah, less than 3%. They are the richest racial group in America. So maybe land ownership isn't the only thing that matters to get wealthy.

Well, I do recognize that a lot of companies now- Hold on a second. Forget the supply chain. Forget the land. Land is basically all owned by white people in America. Okay. Yet Asians, Indians are by far the richest group. So why is it that this particular group that happens to own the land and the supply chains, and we've admitted it's very hard to run this land, very hard to run this idea of farming in South Africa, it feels to me, I could be wrong, that it's a group of resentment-driven politics towards a group of people that own land instead of opportunity and empowerment-based politics talking to the black majority about how they could build a better life for themselves instead

of taking away other people's stuff. Well, maybe the question could be as well, why do you think white South Africans that pretty much acquired that land through unjust means are so apprehensive and they don't really want to break even or probably give up much of the land that was stolen? Hold on. That's a mindset issue. There's plenty in America that gets labeled as quote unquote stolen. Plenty. However, it doesn't necessarily always hold back every ethnic group that is in the country, that is even in the minority of the country. And so I guess the question is, it's a mindset. I don't know South African law enough. I don't know if it's a free market base. I really don't. I'm not just playing cute. But as a general operating principle, it's very bad to build a political movement around taking other people's stuff because obsessed with what you don't have instead of the mental energy to create what you want and what you think you deserve.

We've seen this with a lot of groups to America. And America is a very interesting petri dish because we have a lot of people that come to our country with nothing. We have Cubans, we have Venezuelans, we have Colombians, we have Persians. And a rule is the group that complains the least and focuses all their combined cultural energy on creation does really well over multiple years. That might not be possible in South Africa. There might be like no process to create wealth, but I would just venture a guess that market principles transcend borders. So my, my postulization, and I'm glad you admitted it. Don't say kill the boars. Bad. We should say that it has created real deaths and real harm. If I was in charge, which of course I'm not, I would spend all my time not saying kill the boar, kill the boar. I would say my people get your act together. Let's work harder. Let's prove the boar wrong. Let's start a business. Let's build families. One is driven in resentment and greed and envy and confiscation.

And one is rooted in creation and entrepreneurship and optimism. I'd like to see the latter. Well, it's very interesting you call it confiscation. What about if we call it probably reclaiming the land that was stolen back in the day? But here's the thing as well. Okay, but can I interject? Please, okay. Maybe as well kind of understanding the value of land, right?

Much of what happens with land is obviously, and I think a very prominent economist talks about this, a guy called Hernando de Soto in his book, The Mischief Capital. I know Hernando de Soto. Yeah, he talks about it really. When it comes to land, the value of land is that obviously you can borrow a gannister. And we've seen for much of agriculture, commercial land, which is very expensive commercial land which is very expensive really legit yeah and that's the thing right so if you own land pretty much everywhere you can extract a little value out of it so can i can i can i

interject really quick let's let's try another moral principle is it ever right to punish a grandchild for their grandfather's sins not necessarily but hold on your context well context is very important. They did not steal the land. Someone related to them stole the land. So why punish them? They look like them. They talk like them.

They were related to them. But you are talking about actively punishing a human being that did not create, did not do the atrocity. I'm not saying we should actively punish them, right? Okay, but you're saying, I just want to make sure I'm clear. You went back to these three principles, making wrong the justice, redistributing. Yes, so correcting the injustice, I think. So correcting the justice, let's say, theoretically, it would be that we want some of this land to go back to black South Africans. That's confiscation, right? You no longer own it, this group's going to own it. Therefore, you are punishing a grandkid

for the sin of a grandfather. How is that morally defensible? I think it gets back to the same thing. And how is it morally defensible if, say, the land that you own at the moment was stolen land and it has over time created a massive disparity economically for much of the majority of black people out there. So they could make the same argument as well. Fair enough. And we would say, but the code that we believe in the West and South Africa can choose that inheritance, something that you did not work for, and all of a sudden that you have, and that you are then

nurturing, we're not going to take that away from you if you did not do anything individually wrong, because we, this is the difference. We believe in individual-based, not collectivist group-based politics. So they're saying this group took this from this group, therefore this group must get something else. We're asking, did that individual do anything wrong? That individual is a different person in the grand fund. So what is the solution? The solution is for black South Africans to understand the injustice, and I'll grant you all that, I know nothing about the 1913, I should learn about it, and thank you for bringing that to my attention, right? But I do know that there was a lot of immoral behavior to the, let's say, not the acceptance, but the

gaining of the land, right? That's right. I acknowledge that. Fine. The question is then what to do, and a general rule that has worked in America, and I'll kind of repeat my point, is the group, whomever it is, if they have a mentality and a mantra that is about creation and about resentment, will succeed. This is actually really bad for even the people. Even if they got all the land back, let me tell you, it would not necessarily be a good thing. Number one, we've already shown that they can't necessarily manage it. It's very hard. The Boers have developed a method of farming the last 100 years. How do you justify that? Because I just told you, and you agreed with me, I asked a question, which I think I knew when you affirmed it.

The black South African farmers are not nearly as productive as the equivalent Boer farmers. They're not. The same kind of same land, same fertile soil, the farms equivalent are not as necessarily productive. But again, just as a general rule, and we can have clarity but not agreement, I think it's a bad idea to nationalize complaints into a political movement. I think it's very dangerous. And then the right, we fall into this sometimes too. In South Africa, it's even more dangerous to weaponize racial complaints despite the injustices of past. It's a better use of time to talk about a victor mindset, not a victim mindset. Yeah, I think it's easily said and done. That will be my kind of thinking. But it's simply a

mindset. But the groups that embrace it in America and across the West, they succeed. The Jews have had a lot of crap thrown at them the last hundred years. They get their act together, they organize, they understand how to create wealth. And again, I would say there are many groups that are parallel to that. So you want to make a final point? I don't know how we are in time, but that's pretty much it. Yeah. Again, we have clarity. I would like to see, of course, an end of the kill the boars, but my hope for South Africa is one that is rooted in empowerment and lifting up and optimism, not being like, well, something bad happened to my grandfather, therefore it impacts me. It actually doesn't impact you as much as you think. You're a free being with your own agency and your own ability. Was it wrong? Yes. Is it inhibiting? I would say no. Yeah, I would say that I think cooperation is probably the pathway going forward.

And I think breaking even is a good thing because the expropriation act actually does pretty much cut for that where much of that that's not being used can then be shared. And I think that would be a better way to go. I'll read more about it. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thanks so much for listening, everybody. Email us as always, freedom at charliekirk.com. Thanks so much for listening, everybody. Email us, as always, freedom at charliekirk.com. Thanks so much for listening, and God bless.

For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to charliekirk.com.